My name is Red, and I Own an IL Revolver...

[L-Frame]

It's just a fact of life that when dealing with people who feel strongly about a particular issue that: "things were better back then" whenever "back when" was. Sometimes that's true and sometimes not. And, for most people, especially gun owners who have a long history to look at, change sucks.

Look at every change, stainless steel, changing from bored cylinders and pinnned barrels, firing pin from hammer to frame, the dreaded MIM parts, etc. They were all met with venom by many gun owners. Admittedly the lock is a bit different due to the circumstances and possible functional issue, but things always change.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by Stranglehold:
So, it has now become politically incorrect to discuss the IL! Is this the "change you can believe in" I've been hearing so much about?

Roe

What the hell else is there to discuss about it?

The failures have been discussed. The methods for getting rid of the lock have been discussed. Further discussion on those topics is productive and welcome. Bitching about how you will never buy another IL gun is not productive and nobody cares, anyway.

 

[colt_saa]

RedBerens,
Nice six shooter.

I have been buying, selling and shooting Smith and Wesson revolvers for more than three decades now. The count passed the triple digits a decade or so ago. Even though I sell some from time to time, the count is ever growing. Many of those revolvers have the lock. Truthfully I do not know how many off the top of my head because the lock is not a dividing point for anything to me.

I have no love for the lock. If they came boh ways, I would buy without the lock, but the do not come both ways. I will not cut off my nose to spite my face. If I did, I would not be enjoying the 4 500 S&W Magnums that I now own, I would not have the 8 or 9 Scandium framed revolvers, I would be missing some of my mountian guns or 41 magnums and I would not have a complete set of each variation of 8 shot model 27 that has been produced over the past 9 years. These are truly my favorite. What is better than a compete set is that the revolvers in my compete set are all numbered alike.

I have to agree with Wyatt Earp. Todays nickel is far more impressive than any nickel S&W I have bought or handled over the past three decades. I had no plans on buying the nickel counterparts in the Wheel-O-Eight-Shooters above until I held them in my hands at last years SHOT show. They looked so good that I had my Lew Horton rep check the inventory for my number befor we left Vegas and I ordered them on the spot.

What about the color case hardened frames that have poped up over the last 10 years. Sexy as all get out on a nice little model 36.

girvin02,
You want an 8 shot 357 Magnum, what is stopping you from buying one? The first 8 shot 357 was introduced at SHOT show in 1997 and shipped that June or July. I have the 27th 8 shot 357 Magnum revoler made as well as the 357th 8 shot 357 Magnum revovler made. The lock did not come into play until after S&W was purchased by a lock company (Saf-T-Lok). Even then they waited until the existing inventory of frames was depleted. That was sometime around 2002. So there are a good 4-5 years of production for you to draw from. There have to be many thousands of them availble out there.

 

[girvin02]

Originally posted by colt_saa:
girvin02,
You want an 8 shot 357 Magnum, what is stopping you from buying one? The first 8 shot 357 was introduced at SHOT show in 1997 and shipped that June or July. I have the 27th 8 shot 357 Magnum revoler made as well as the 357th 8 shot 357 Magnum revovler made. The lock did not come into play until after S&W was purchased by a lock company (Saf-T-Lok). Even then they waited until the existing inventory of frames was depleted. That was sometime around 2002. So there are a good 4-5 years of production for you to draw from. There have to be many thousands of them availble out there.

Thank you for that information. I was unaware that an 8-shot model 27 was ever offered, without the IL. I have never seen one. I now have a new gun atop of my "must have" list.

Edit:
I noticed that you said 8-shot .357 magnum, not 8-shot model 27. There's a big difference, I want the latter. Did S&W ever make a pre-lock 8-shot model 27? I suspect not, otherwise its pictures would be posted all over this web site.

 

[Bob R]

I don't own an IL gun, yet.

So far I have not been tempted by any of the IL guns, that is until recently.

Then S&W came out with a new 10mm revolver. The Model 310 Night Guard is looking pretty nice.

I guess I will bite the bullet and now purchase an IL gun.....afterall, it can always be disabled.

bob

 

[hitecrednek]

Nice gun!
If it locks up at the wrong moment, I hope your widow will be well taken care of!

 

[ladder13]

My objection to the lock is where it is located. Don't care about malfunction, as it's easily removed or rendered useless. Don't care about the politics, imho Ruger did worse with the 10 round magazines. If Smith relocated the lock under the grip or on the backstrap, I'd be buying many of the current models. I like the Nightguards, M21's,M22's and the Scandium revolvers. The lock, to me, and only me, is UGLY. Just relocate it, that's all I ask. Hasn't Ruger put theirs under the grip or something?

 

[hitecrednek]

like he^ said....they did such a piss-poor job of designing the lock that it wrecks the nice lines of the gun. It makes it look like S&W is a division of Kel-tec or something...

 

[Bob R]

Hasn't Ruger put theirs under the grip or something?

I don't know where Ruger put theirs, but my Taurus 17HMR has a lock on it. I "think" it is at the base of the hammer. I haven't ever used it, and I can't recall where it is because it is out of sight.

I guess I should go look at it, we are getting close to gopher (ground squirrels) shooting time in Montana.

bob

 

[ladder13]

Yes...that's all I'm asking, hide the hideous thing.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Mike, I agree. The lock would not be an issue at all if it got moved elsewhere so that it would not be easily visible and the J, K, and L frames could be recountoured to its original lines.

But it doesn't bother me so much that I will avoid buying new.

 

[marvin knox]

I carry a 340 everyday with a lock in it. It doesn't bother me much at all safety wise. I wish it wasn't there. But then I wouldn't have a scandium 13 oz. gun that's as strong as nails. I've put a whole lot of rounds of .357 magnums through it and there's not a sign of wear anywhere on it to speak of.

I'm looking to get a 686+ with a 2 1/2" barrel and can't seem to find one without the lock. If I don't stumble accross one soon - I'll get a new one with a lock and not even bat an eye.

(Anyone help me out???)

The lock doesn't really detract from the dark little scandium gun. But it sure does on the stainless models IMO.

Good angle on this thread. The lock is no real big deal except for the cosmetics of it. I can't for the life of me understand how S&W could be so far behind the curve that they would drill a hole right in the side of a beautiful gun when there are other places to put the lock.

If they had the lock hole somewhere like Taurus puts theirs - the controversy would soon pretty much die out, I'll bet. What a shame and what poor businessmen as well.

I actually think the lock might be a pretty good idea if only they didn't drill obvious holes in the side of their guns - then compound it by scratching an arrow on the metal to show us morons how to work the lock.

What's up with that???

By the way - have you noticed how many of the advertising pictures for S&W revolvers show the gun pointed in a direction that doesn't show the lock - especially on the SS models? Obviously they are aware of the cosmetic factor. Why they don't change the location is beyond me.

Also - I look at the pictures of guns on the S&W forum and notice how many post their pictures with the gun pointed a certain way to not show the lock. Or they point it the other way to PROUDLY disply the fact that it is a pre-lock model. What a crock! And what a crying shame!

Anyway - there's my 2 cents worth on it. Didn't mean to go off on it and add to the turmoil - especially since I like the thrust of where this thread is headed.

By the way - the gun in the posted picture is beautiful. It being blue - the lock doesn't really detract at all IMO.

Very nice gun!

 

[deanodog]

When everyone gets tired of their ILs I am going to buy a bunch of them cheap.(he he)

 

[colt_saa]

Originally posted by girvin02:

Originally posted by colt_saa:
girvin02,
You want an 8 shot 357 Magnum, what is stopping you from buying one? The first 8 shot 357 was introduced at SHOT show in 1997 and shipped that June or July. I have the 27th 8 shot 357 Magnum reviler made as well as the 357th 8 shot 357 Magnum revolver made. The lock did not come into play until after S&W was purchased by a lock company (Saf-T-Lok). Even then they waited until the existing inventory of frames was depleted. That was sometime around 2002. So there are a good 4-5 years of production for you to draw from. There have to be many thousands of them available out there.

Thank you for that information. I was unaware that an 8-shot model 27 was ever offered, without the IL. I have never seen one. I now have a new gun atop of my "must have" list.

Edit:
I noticed that you said 8-shot .357 magnum, not 8-shot model 27. There's a big difference, I want the latter. Did S&W ever make a pre-lock 8-shot model 27? I suspect not, otherwise its pictures would be posted all over this web site.

You are correct, I did not pay close enough attention to your post to realize you wanted just a model 27. However the answer is still yes the blue carbon steel 8 shot model 27 was introduced in 2000 initially as a 4" or a 6 1/2". These were a Bangers exclusive that was supposed to be followed up with the 3 1/2" and 5" being introduced in 2001.

Plus there is the 5" prototype from 1999. However, it is not for sale.

The bad news for you is that only 100 of each barrel length were produced. Now several have changed hands right here on this forum. You might consider a WTB add in the classifieds?

All of these images and all of this information has been posted many times before in many threads right here on this forum. not to mention most of it is documented in the Standard Catalog of Smith and Wesson

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by marvin knox:


Good angle on this thread. The lock is no real big deal except for the cosmetics of it. I can't for the life of me understand how S&W could be so far behind the curve that they would drill a hole right in the side of a beautiful gun when there are other places to put the lock.

If they had the lock hole somewhere like Taurus puts theirs - the controversy would soon pretty much die out, I'll bet. What a shame and what poor businessmen as well.

I actually think the lock might be a pretty good idea if only they didn't drill obvious holes in the side of their guns - then compound it by scratching an arrow on the metal to show us morons how to work the lock.

What's up with that???

By the way - have you noticed how many of the advertising pictures for S&W revolvers show the gun pointed in a direction that doesn't show the lock - especially on the SS models? Obviously they are aware of the cosmetic factor. Why they don't change the location is beyond me.

Also - I look at the pictures of guns on the S&W forum and notice how many post their pictures with the gun pointed a certain way to not show the lock. Or they point it the other way to PROUDLY disply the fact that it is a pre-lock model. What a crock! And what a crying shame!

Yes, pretty much sums it up, including the observation that Smith KNOWS the lock is ugly. They always show the right side of the gun. Coincidence?
The lock and the stupid directional arrow are too much to bear. Just re-engineer the darn thing, hide the lock somewhere else besides the flattest part of the gun. Is that too much to ask? Please. I really WANT to buy some new guns. Help me, Smith.

 

[akr]

Thanks for your good post, Red. I have a brand new 627 4" standard and a brand new 686 exclusive with smooth cylinder and 5" bbl. I have been extremely proud of them, and I have been well satisfied with the workmanship on these guns. They are prized possessions. I just get tired of hearing about how lousy and unreliable my guns are, as you do. Again, thanks for your post. I know how you feel, Red.

 

[Wyatt Earp]

Originally posted by marvin knox:
The lock is no real big deal except for the cosmetics of it.

I actually think the lock might be a pretty good idea

I disagree on both counts.

From a functional point of view, the lock HAS malfunctioned (engaged itself) during the firing of the firearms. There are several credible accounts on this forum. You can choose to ignore them, but they still have happened. I will not rely on an IL-equipped S&W for self defense until I have disabled the lock so that it cannot ever lock the gun up.

From a safe storage point of view, the lock is completely useless. It is no more effective than a trigger or cylinder padlock or placing the weapon in a locked cabinet or safe.

 

[ladder13]

Originally posted by akr:
ladder, the right side of the gun is the best side of the gun to look at regardless of whether or not it has an interior lock. That side has less clutter to begin with.

Except I sometimes look at the left side.

.......................................
Just having some fun.

 

[akr]

Originally posted by ladder13:

Originally posted by akr:
ladder, the right side of the gun is the best side of the gun to look at regardless of whether or not it has an interior lock. That side has less clutter to begin with.

Except I sometimes look at the left side.

.......................................
Just having some fun.

I once was so ashamed to, but lately I've been sneaking a peek or two. LOL.

 

[VAdoublegunner]

I have a 25-13 that has a great finish and is a far better shooter with its worst loads than my big throated 4" 25-5 could ever hope to be on its best day. Anyone that tempted me face-to-face with a good 45 Colt 625 or a 29-8 with an IL that just had to have a no lock 25-5 may very well walk away happy. I do not like the new 2-piece barrels at all, however.